TexasCHLforum.com

I once got into a discussion at the dinner table with a young Frenchman in a restaurant about US policy in Iraq. This was back in 2005. He was critical as only the French can be. I pointed out two things, which he finally had to admit to. One was that Saddam Hussein was an evil beast. The other was that French leaders had negotiated favorable oil deals in exchange for taking Saddam's side in the run-up to the invasion. He admitted that both statements were true. I then said that all that is necessary for evil to prosper in this world is for good men to do nothing, but that HIS nation had not only done nothing, but they had cynically sided with evil for a profit motive. I then said, mine had not. He thought about it for a moment, and then he agreed with me. We had a very nice meal together after that.

The Annoyed Man wrote:I once got into a discussion at the dinner table with a young Frenchman in a restaurant about US policy in Iraq. This was back in 2005. He was critical as only the French can be. I pointed out two things, which he finally had to admit to. One was that Saddam Hussein was an evil beast. The other was that French leaders had negotiated favorable oil deals in exchange for taking Saddam's side in the run-up to the invasion. He admitted that both statements were true. I then said that all that is necessary for evil to prosper in this world is for good men to do nothing, but that HIS nation had not only done nothing, but they had cynically sided with evil for a profit motive. I then said, mine had not. He thought about it for a moment, and then he agreed with me. We had a very nice meal together after that.

In the first Iraq war, Hussein was the aggressor. In the current Iraq war, the USA is the aggressor. Say what you will, that evil beast maintained order among his neighbors.

That's JMO, but what do I know?

Oldgringo wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:I once got into a discussion at the dinner table with a young Frenchman in a restaurant about US policy in Iraq. This was back in 2005. He was critical as only the French can be. I pointed out two things, which he finally had to admit to. One was that Saddam Hussein was an evil beast. The other was that French leaders had negotiated favorable oil deals in exchange for taking Saddam's side in the run-up to the invasion. He admitted that both statements were true. I then said that all that is necessary for evil to prosper in this world is for good men to do nothing, but that HIS nation had not only done nothing, but they had cynically sided with evil for a profit motive. I then said, mine had not. He thought about it for a moment, and then he agreed with me. We had a very nice meal together after that.

In the first Iraq war, Hussein was the aggressor. In the current Iraq war, the USA is the aggressor. Say what you will, that evil beast maintained order among his neighbors.

That's JMO, but what do I know?

And you are certainly entitled to it. All I can answer is that the best intelligence estimates of most of the western nations involved before the invasion was that Hussein—a man who had also shown a propensity to use WMD—was headed toward becoming a nuclear power with a will to use those weapons on his neighbors.

Hindsight is almost always 20/20, and Monday morning quarterbacking comes easy. Given a presidency that began with 9/11, I would not have wanted to be in George Bush's shoes and have to face making that decision. So I'm not going to apply moral relevancy to the analysis.

Tam wrote:

...the best intelligence estimates of most of the western nations involved before the invasion was that Hussein—a man who had also shown a propensity to use WMD—was headed toward becoming a nuclear power with a will to use those weapons on his neighbors.

If nuclear power was the issue, why haven't we invaded Iran or North Korea? Iran and North Korea are two real live wacko states if there ever were any.

That said, we don't need to be getting into anymore wars anywhere if we lack the will to win them. "Winning the hearts and minds of invaded countries" is a concept that hasn't worked....for several hundred years.

The Annoyed Man wrote:So I'm not going to apply moral relevancy to the analysis.

Whether you are in a just war is a moral/ethical discussion on its face, so removing the issue of morality from the discussion would say to me, "Whether or not we acted justly or ethically is of no consequence because the times were hard, so we won't talk about what people did to get by the best they could." I suspect you don't mean that as it isn't consistent with what I know about you, so I'm wondering what you meant.

As a matter of fact, the issue of what constitutes a just war has come up enough that I just went and started a thread on it. I hope you participate!

Oldgringo wrote:Say what you will, that evil beast maintained order among his neighbors.

The same could be said for many dictators and organized crime bosses.

Oldgringo wrote:That said, we don't need to be getting into anymore wars anywhere if we lack the will to win them.

There I agree wholeheartedly.

"The purpose of fighting is to win. There is no possible victory in defense. The sword is more important than the shield and skill is more important than either. The final weapon is the brain. All else is supplemental."
John Steinbeck

Oldgringo wrote: ... Say what you will, that evil beast maintained order among his neighbors.

Really? He maintained order among his neighbors? How do you figure that? By invading Iran? Kuwait? Building cannons and missile big enough to reach Israel? Trying to develop nuclear, bioloigical, and chemical weapons and delivery systems and being megalomaniacal enough to use them on Israelis, Shias, Kurds, etc?

The only one who might have possibly scared its neighbors more and caused more trouble than Saddam's Iraq was Iran. Whether we should spend any effort defending a bunch of little and big sheikhdoms that provide the West a significant amount of oil, and provide the US over a dozen major military installations which are not only handy for thumping the odd Taliban/al Quaeda goon but for keeping Iran up at nights (under certain presidents, at least), is another question. However, Saddam was certainly not "keeping order" in the middle east.

There were no middle eastern nations that opposed our removing Saddam with the possible exception of Iran and Syria. There is always some public blather about Arab & Muslim solidarity, but behind the scenes, they were rooting us on and helping us do it. (Military logistical trivia - the USAF RED HORSE (civil engineers) poured more concrete at a single mid-east airbase than it had at any time since the Vietnam war -- and we built or expanded at least 13 air bases right around the Persian Gulf itself, all in Arab countries).

More evidence of the big dog/little dog effect. All the little dogs yip and yap and tussle with the big dog over minor stuff, to show they are not completely impotent, but when the big dog finally finishes his nap and starts moving, they all fall in line as part of the pack. Osama bin Laden famously said that people follow the "strong horse."


A better way to address the "image" question occurred to me later, which brought me back to this thread. The US should focus on substance, on its own goals, and "image" will take care of itself. Bush at least understood this, and for all the flack he took, allies and enemies respected and feared the US. Not necessarily agreed with, or liked, but paid attention to the US. Unfortunately we now have a President who is focused on image, with the result that neither our allies nor our enemies respect or fear us, and they don't like us to boot. The way he acts, one might almost think this is his goal...

Oldgringo wrote:That said, we don't need to be getting into anymore wars anywhere if we lack the will to win them.

On that, we'll agree.

ELB wrote:

Oldgringo wrote: ... Say what you will, that evil beast maintained order among his neighbors.

Really? He maintained order among his neighbors? How do you figure that? By invading Iran? Kuwait? Building cannons and missile big enough to reach Israel? Trying to develop nuclear, bioloigical, and chemical weapons and delivery systems and being megalomaniacal enough to use them on Israelis, Shias, Kurds, etc?

The only one who might have possibly scared its neighbors more and caused more trouble than Saddam's Iraq was Iran. Whether we should spend any effort defending a bunch of little and big sheikhdoms that provide the West a significant amount of oil, and provide the US over a dozen major military installations which are not only handy for thumping the odd Taliban/al Quaeda goon but for keeping Iran up at nights (under certain presidents, at least), is another question. However, Saddam was certainly not "keeping order" in the middle east.

There were no middle eastern nations that opposed our removing Saddam with the possible exception of Iran and Syria. There is always some public blather about Arab & Muslim solidarity, but behind the scenes, they were rooting us on and helping us do it. (Military logistical trivia - the USAF RED HORSE (civil engineers) poured more concrete at a single mid-east airbase than it had at any time since the Vietnam war -- and we built or expanded at least 13 air bases right around the Persian Gulf itself, all in Arab countries).

More evidence of the big dog/little dog effect. All the little dogs yip and yap and tussle with the big dog over minor stuff, to show they are not completely impotent, but when the big dog finally finishes his nap and starts moving, they all fall in line as part of the pack. Osama bin Laden famously said that people follow the "strong horse."


A better way to address the "image" question occurred to me later, which brought me back to this thread. The US should focus on substance, on its own goals, and "image" will take care of itself. Bush at least understood this, and for all the flack he took, allies and enemies respected and feared the US. Not necessarily agreed with, or liked, but paid attention to the US. Unfortunately we now have a President who is focused on image, with the result that neither our allies nor our enemies respect or fear us, and they don't like us to boot. The way he acts, one might almost think this is his goal...

What has the ongoing second Iraq war accomplished?

Hoi Polloi wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:So I'm not going to apply moral relevancy to the analysis.

Whether you are in a just war is a moral/ethical discussion on its face, so removing the issue of morality from the discussion would say to me, "Whether or not we acted justly or ethically is of no consequence because the times were hard, so we won't talk about what people did to get by the best they could." I suspect you don't mean that as it isn't consistent with what I know about you, so I'm wondering what you meant.

As a matter of fact, the issue of what constitutes a just war has come up enough that I just went and started a thread on it. I hope you participate!

I simply meant that American, British, and French intelligence services were in agreement that he was trying to develop nuclear weapons, according to the best estimates available at the time. It is a common mistake of amateur historians to try to explain the actions of the past from within the context of the present. That's not very good historical practice. When added to the proven and documented facts that the Iraqis had made available training facilities to AQ, and the proven and well documented facts of his having previously used WMD both on his own people and against Iran during that war, and all of the apparent evidence at the time which seemed to point to a vigorous effort on Hussein's part to develop nuclear weapons, perhaps it is not too far beyond imagining that the decision to invade Iraq must have seemed very necessary at the time. Nobody on this forum is in a position to second guess that, because none of us was there, and none of us has access to all of the details that were available to either those agencies or the president. That's just a fact. We can argue one way or the other all day long about whether or not the war was well managed once it was begun; and we can argue one way or the other all day long about whether or not we ought to continue to be there at all, given the Iraqi president's willingness to skewer the U.S. whenever it suits him.... and I might be in agreement with some of those things. But that doesn't change the fact that nobody here, unless they currently have, or had at the time, the same security clearance AND access to the same information as the president of the United States and his intelligence advisers had at that time, is in any kind of position to do more than speculate.

When I said I wasn't going to get into a morally relativistic discussion, it was exactly because our opinions (mine included) are worth exactly what it cost us to type them. At the end of the day, and partly because of all the hyperventilating about this stuff from both sides of the aisle, none of us was there, in the oval office, filtering the intelligence estimates and participating in the decision making. At best, none of us (again, myself included) is remotely as well informed about the costs/benefits of the decision to invade Iraq as are the people who were actually involved in the behind closed doors assessments.

We can only judge, in hindsight, if it was worth it in the end. And again, we all may well disagree about that. But, I won't let a comment go unchallenged that seems to morally equate George Bush's policies with Saddam Hussein's, because it is patently false. I still haven't seen Iraqi oilfields taken over by "imperialist America's Big Oil Companies."

But, in the interest in not flogging a dead horse, neither am I going to continue to participate in this line of discussion. For one thing, it's in violation of forum rules regarding political discussions not having to do with guns and gun rights. For another thing, nobody's minds are going to be changed by any of it.

Y'all have a good day.

TAM

I agree. I believe GWB made a hard decision with the informaiton he had. At the time people were criticizing him for the U.S. going to war against Saddam, I was thinking “I can’t criticize, I was not invited to the presidential briefing this morning.”

As for the image the world has of the United States it doesn't much matter to me.

My wife was saying how much she disliked George Patton because he was a “war monger”.
My reply was that in peace time we have the luxury of criticizing men like Patton but during war we need them.

The Annoyed Man wrote:

Hoi Polloi wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:So I'm not going to apply moral relevancy to the analysis.

Whether you are in a just war is a moral/ethical discussion on its face, so removing the issue of morality from the discussion would say to me, "Whether or not we acted justly or ethically is of no consequence because the times were hard, so we won't talk about what people did to get by the best they could." I suspect you don't mean that as it isn't consistent with what I know about you, so I'm wondering what you meant.

As a matter of fact, the issue of what constitutes a just war has come up enough that I just went and started a thread on it. I hope you participate!

It is a common mistake of amateur historians to try to explain the actions of the past from within the context of the present. That's not very good historical practice.

Ahhh! Yes, I completely agree with that.

WildBill wrote:I am starting this thread, because I don't want to hijack SeamusTx's thread about the shooting in Holland. I think that it's an interesting topic. Of course I don't want it to turn into a discussion of religion.

ELB wrote:

WildBill wrote: ...I wonder if most Americans know or care how this type of news coverage adversely affects the image of the United States throughout the world.

Count me in the "don't much care" category. My time abroad taught me that when you are the big dog on the planet, all the little dogs living in your shadow develop feelings of inferiority, even if (or perhaps, especially if) it is the big dog who is holding the wolf -- or the bear -- at bay. They will find all kinds of secondary stuff to yip about, whether it is guns, fast food, SUVs, languages, treating military exercises as practice for war instead of camp-outs, etc. (Note -- you will also find this at the root of the Arab/Muslim hostility to the West)

Mass shootings happen abroad as well, and are not exactly rare, even in allegedly well-behaved European countries. I think it was Kopel or Lott who documented this in one of their papers on mass shooting event. Europeans like to snipe at us for individual citizens killing each other and call us violent. They tend to overlook that throughout history they have killed far more of their own citizens, they just use their own governments, police forces, and armies to do so. Much more efficient to have the state do it.

It's not an accident that these shooting incidents get worldwide coverage --it's part of the media anti-gun agenda, and the European media is elated whenever they can use any kind of shooting incident to push the collectivist anti self-defense anti-gun agenda. However, you can bet that an incident like the jewelry store owner in Houston shooting four bad guys doesn't get that kind of coverage inside or outside the US. A fake gun on a school campus gets national attention in this country, but self-defense shootings overwhelmingly remain local news. How effective is this strategy as propaganda? I don't know. It's probably effective among certain groups predisposed to be anti-gun, but the internet probably limits how effective it can be on the whole.

VMI77 wrote:It's not an accident that these shooting incidents get worldwide coverage --it's part of the media anti-gun agenda, and the European media is elated whenever they can use any kind of shooting incident to push the collectivist anti self-defense anti-gun agenda. However, you can bet that an incident like the jewelry store owner in Houston shooting four bad guys doesn't get that kind of coverage inside or outside the US. A fake gun on a school campus gets national attention in this country, but self-defense shootings overwhelmingly remain local news. How effective is this strategy as propaganda? I don't know. It's probably effective among certain groups predisposed to be anti-gun, but the internet probably limits how effective it can be on the whole.

I was in Hong Kong during the Oklahoma City bombing. In the hotel lounge, CNN was playing the video of the explosion over and over again. I am sure that the coverage was the same in the U.S.

A couple of days later when I was in Japan, a Japanese co-worker made the comment that it must be very easy to buy a bomb in the United States. I think that he thought we could go to the store and buy one at Home Depot or Ace Hardware.

Hoi Polloi wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:

Hoi Polloi wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:So I'm not going to apply moral relevancy to the analysis.

Whether you are in a just war is a moral/ethical discussion on its face, so removing the issue of morality from the discussion would say to me, "Whether or not we acted justly or ethically is of no consequence because the times were hard, so we won't talk about what people did to get by the best they could." I suspect you don't mean that as it isn't consistent with what I know about you, so I'm wondering what you meant.

As a matter of fact, the issue of what constitutes a just war has come up enough that I just went and started a thread on it. I hope you participate!

It is a common mistake of amateur historians to try to explain the actions of the past from within the context of the present. That's not very good historical practice.

Ahhh! Yes, I completely agree with that.

Me too! I don't want to hear the opinion of an amatuer historian who wasn't there. I want to hear the opinion of a professional historian who also wasn't there.